If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

By the way, what cuts are coming? I have asked the question many times and never got a clear answer about what the PC's or Wildrose plan to cut to save billions. I think Albertan's have a right to know what their plans really are, or do they want to save the bad news as a surprise until after the next election. Why don't they tell us now which hospitals and schools they plan to close?

I expect the usual stuff - a few old hospitals shut down, kids having to tolerate a couple of extra children in each classroom, a lot of middle management eliminated in ivory towers, doctors not getting six figure bonuses, etc.

Well, with the PC's governing so long a lot of the local politicians were also PC supporters or had close ties to them, which seemed to work good for quite a while until the old regime fell. I suspect some local politicians are still having trouble trying to adjust to that - being golf buddies with the local PC executive just doesn't work so well any more.

Well, the votes have been counted, and the PCs and Wildrose will be merging. The Alberta NDP is dead meat.

Alberta's right united again: PCs and Wildrose approve merger of two parties

Alberta's political landscape profoundly shifted Saturday as its two main conservative parties — enemies for a decade — overwhelmingly agreed to end their feud and work as one to defeat Premier Rachel Notley's NDP.

In separate votes, members of the Wildrose party and the Progressive Conservatives voted in a landslide to merge into the new United Conservative Party.

Wildrose supporters voted 95.4 per cent in results announced at a hotel in Red Deer late Saturday afternoon.

About two hours later, Progressive Conservative Leader Jason Kenney announced at Calgary's Stampede Grounds that 95 per cent of his members ratified the proposed deal, which had been brokered by both parties in May.

Jean and Kenney united is obscene to me. I don't like either of these leaders. Or their current party stances.

That said reuniting changes the status quo, probably results in winning the next election but I'm not liking the brand. In some sense I think could be some cost to Alberta as well. If Federally the Libs continue to be in power which seems likely. An Alberta merger with the Wilder Rose signifies a switch further right to the Conservative brand. Taking them farther from Center in even the National discourse and with Scheer seemingly too availed of that.

In short a Con party that switches more to the right in the national conversation is less likely to accrue votes countering a centrist Liberal party. Alberta, to the Cons, is important in this federal conversation. So this could be win in Alberta, lose the country. Meaning that a merger Alberta party is quite likely dealing with a Federal Liberal ruling party as poorly as that works out for Alberta.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Jean and Kenney united is obscene to me. I don't like either of these leaders. Or their current party stances.

That said reuniting changes the status quo, probably results in winning the next election but I'm not liking the brand. In some sense I think could be some cost to Alberta as well. If Federally the Libs continue to be in power which seems likely. An Alberta merger with the Wilder Rose signifies a switch further right to the Conservative brand. Taking them farther from Center in even the National discourse and with Scheer seemingly too availed of that.

In short a Con party that switches more to the right in the national conversation is less likely to accrue votes countering a centrist Liberal party. Alberta, to the Cons, is important in this federal conversation. So this could be win in Alberta, lose the country. Meaning that a merger Alberta party is quite likely dealing with a Federal Liberal ruling party as poorly as that works out for Alberta.

I guess we will see come next election..I have been online with all parties, except for dippers, they are not happy..

Jean and Kenney united is obscene to me. I don't like either of these leaders. Or their current party stances.

That said reuniting changes the status quo, probably results in winning the next election but I'm not liking the brand. In some sense I think could be some cost to Alberta as well. If Federally the Libs continue to be in power which seems likely. An Alberta merger with the Wilder Rose signifies a switch further right to the Conservative brand. Taking them farther from Center in even the National discourse and with Scheer seemingly too availed of that.

In short a Con party that switches more to the right in the national conversation is less likely to accrue votes countering a centrist Liberal party. Alberta, to the Cons, is important in this federal conversation. So this could be win in Alberta, lose the country. Meaning that a merger Alberta party is quite likely dealing with a Federal Liberal ruling party as poorly as that works out for Alberta.

I guess we will see come next election..I have been online with all parties, except for dippers, they are not happy..

Jean, Kenney, Scheer just play populist politics. None of them are really leaders. If I can add you don't like Hoffman. I can't stand looking at or hearing Kenney. He looks like he IS the pork barrel. Its a competition whether I Detest Kenney or Jean more. I wouldn't trust these people to valet my vehicle.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Jean and Kenney united is obscene to me. I don't like either of these leaders. Or their current party stances.

That said reuniting changes the status quo, probably results in winning the next election but I'm not liking the brand. In some sense I think could be some cost to Alberta as well. If Federally the Libs continue to be in power which seems likely. An Alberta merger with the Wilder Rose signifies a switch further right to the Conservative brand. Taking them farther from Center in even the National discourse and with Scheer seemingly too availed of that.

In short a Con party that switches more to the right in the national conversation is less likely to accrue votes countering a centrist Liberal party. Alberta, to the Cons, is important in this federal conversation. So this could be win in Alberta, lose the country. Meaning that a merger Alberta party is quite likely dealing with a Federal Liberal ruling party as poorly as that works out for Alberta.

I guess we will see come next election..I have been online with all parties, except for dippers, they are not happy..

Jean, Kenney, Scheer just play populist politics. None of them are really leaders. If I can add you don't like Hoffman. I can't stand looking at or hearing Kenney. He looks like he IS the pork barrel. Its a competition whether I Detest Kenney or Jean more. I wouldn't trust these people to valet my vehicle.

Notley is not a leader imho, she's way too far up Trudeau's butt! That's fine, like I said, the NDP are terrible wherever they go..spend, spend spend..and Hoffman is a sewer rat!

Health Minister and Deputy Premier Sarah Hoffman stated "What I feel like the vote is about is about saying to Wildrose members: ‘Are you ready to re-embrace PC entitlement?’ And to the PC members: ‘Are you ready to embrace Wildrose cuts?’ which we know would be deep and have lasting impacts"

Health Minister and Deputy Premier Sarah Hoffman stated "What I feel like the vote is about is about saying to Wildrose members: ‘Are you ready to re-embrace PC entitlement?’ And to the PC members: ‘Are you ready to embrace Wildrose cuts?’ which we know would be deep and have lasting impacts"

Health Minister and Deputy Premier Sarah Hoffman stated "What I feel like the vote is about is about saying to Wildrose members: ‘Are you ready to re-embrace PC entitlement?’ And to the PC members: ‘Are you ready to embrace Wildrose cuts?’ which we know would be deep and have lasting impacts"

Jean, Kenney, Scheer just play populist politics. None of them are really leaders. If I can add you don't like Hoffman. I can't stand looking at or hearing Kenney. He looks like he IS the pork barrel. Its a competition whether I Detest Kenney or Jean more. I wouldn't trust these people to valet my vehicle.

Good one Replacement.

All joking aside, Top_Dawg figgers the jury is still out on Scheer.

But yeah, neither Jean nor Kenney really have it.

This weekend was all back slaps, front slaps, and eiffel 69s.

Top_Dawg is looking forward to all the muck raking, name calling, and back stabbing of the leadership race.

^I don't think you will see that until the leader is elected. In any party, there are all sorts of ideas thrown out, but ultimately, its the leader who decides which ones to focus on. There seems though, I think, to be broad agreement that government spending has to be significantly cut, and that the carbon has to go.

^I don't think you will see that until the leader is elected. In any party, there are all sorts of ideas thrown out, but ultimately, its the leader who decides which ones to focus on. There seems though, I think, to be broad agreement that government spending has to be significantly cut, and that the carbon has to go.

Listening to Jean now, he's a nice guy. I'd be okay with Jean or Kenney.ABNDP!

^Jean is the more likeable of the two, and he is positioning himself as a more moderate choice. Its going to be interesting to see who wins - in some ways, Kenney is appealing more to the Wildrose base (which includes rural social conservatives), and Jean to the PC base (which includes fiscal conservatives who are more liberal on social issues).

^Jean is the more likeable of the two, and he is positioning himself as a more moderate choice. Its going to be interesting to see who wins - in some ways, Kenney is appealing more to the Wildrose base (which includes rural social conservatives), and Jean to the PC base (which includes fiscal conservatives who are more liberal on social issues).

They both have something to offer the party. I've always liked Kenney, he and Ambrose are very good friends.

I think it's a little presumptuous to call this the end of the NDP before you even know what their platform is. It's almost as if a lot of you don't actually care, you just like that they're conservative.

By the way, what cuts are coming? I have asked the question many times and never got a clear answer about what the PC's or Wildrose plan to cut to save billions. I think Albertan's have a right to know what their plans really are, or do they want to save the bad news as a surprise until after the next election. Why don't they tell us now which hospitals and schools they plan to close?

I expect the usual stuff - a few old hospitals shut down, kids having to tolerate a couple of extra children in each classroom, a lot of middle management eliminated in ivory towers, etc.

Nickels and dimes impacts. Our problem, as long as oil royalty payments are low, is far far larger than any tinkering around can eliminate. Significant program cuts, program eliminations, salary cuts and/or freezes and higher taxes and fees are likely required if some sort of balance is to be achieved.

However people really need to think about how government spending works. A large portion of it goes directly into the provincial economy, into the salaries of people that turn around and go to restaurants, buy and repair houses, and otherwise create other jobs and permit other businesses to be profitable. Exactly the same as any private sector spending.

Encourage stability and job security and people spend even more likely borrowing and/or saving less.

Encourage instability and job insecurity and people save more, fight harder for the secure jobs (even though they may not be suitable for them), they try to grab the money and run (ie leave the province), and companies and other entities also start to engage in knee jerk, unprofessional, insecure behaviour while refusing to invest for the long run because they'll never know if they can survive the short run.

And moa- many businesses see NDP government debt as saving their bacon while socializing the cost of saving their executive jobs and perks and even company profitability / because they know that the alternative of maintaining a balanced budget as oil prices collapsed would have meant a massive cut to government spending in Alberta and a possible collapse of the economy into a depression. That's why the PCs would have done the same thing - borrowed to the hilt and prayed for higher oil prices.

High loonie buds. were headed for a ' bitumen bubble ' costing this government more to operate , a costly mistake putting all our eggs in one government bloat. This time it's not oil and gas propping wages up....

I think it's a little presumptuous to call this the end of the NDP before you even know what their platform is. It's almost as if a lot of you don't actually care, you just like that they're conservative.

Well you can say what you want, or hope. I tend to say what I like..( shrug)

I think it's a little presumptuous to call this the end of the NDP before you even know what their platform is. It's almost as if a lot of you don't actually care, you just like that they're conservative.

Yeah, Top_Dawg hears ya seamus.

But it's pretty telling.

At this point most Albertans will take anything just to be rid of the NDs.

We remain somewhat insulated to it here in the Chuck because there are so many government jobs here.

But drive 100 miles out of Emmonton in any direction and the hate for the NDs is unreal.

It's intense.

And most of the ND caucus is made up of barristas and goat yogis so they don't have the wherewithal to do anything.

But it wouldn't surprise Top_Dawg at all if ol' scarecrow and her cabinet started to get some real pushback from the few severely normal MLAs in caucus before the end of the year.

There really isn't much that the NDP have done that's not pretty centrist, almost business as usual. There are some yoga barista-types in the NDP Caucus and even on Cabinet, but everything that they've actually done is more just slapping on a pair of yoga pants than the vegan hemp & beet cleanse that so many Albertans imagine has been going on.

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

I've come very close to voting for Wild Rose (Daniel Smith seemed sensible and level headed) - But the combination of the PC's Redford talking sensibly as the WR's "Lake of Fire" talk erupted (raising suspicions that more ideologues would come out of the woodwork to usurp power to segregate Albertans) had me pulling my vote at the last minute.

I guess that's the problem. These parties with their narrow, flawed ideologies and inflexible believers floating in the background mean that changing facts and circumstances won't change their so called "principles", no matter how many people get hurt or no matter how severely a few get hurt - that is, as long as it's not them.

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

I've come very close to voting for Wild Rose (Daniel Smith seemed sensible and level headed) - But the fear of more "Lake of Fire" types coming out of the woodwork to usurp power and segregate Albertans...

When the voting results were in I was just thinking about Daniel Smith. I raised a lot of $ for her in the 2012 election campaign. That would be cool if she entered the leadership race. I'd vote for her in a heart beat.

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

Yep. The electorate is really weird in Alberta. Essentially vote out the Cons because they finally got fed up with 20 years of Con corruption and pork barrel politics. Then came the Cons and the crashing economy which CAUSED people to lose faith that the Cons had any answer. Now a few short years later and people are prepared to go back to that same corruption?

I'm with you and would never vote Wild Rose. I will never vote for a party amalgamated with Wild Rose. Period.

The weirdest thing is that the NDP are blamed for the economy when the crash came during PC reign.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Official numbers show roughly half of all members voted, but those that did voted overwhelmingly for unity. Curious to see what the other half do. I personally predict at least one new conservative party popping up, and a statistically good chance of the right being less united than it was prior.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

I've come very close to voting for Wild Rose (Daniel Smith seemed sensible and level headed) - But the fear of more "Lake of Fire" types coming out of the woodwork to usurp power and segregate Albertans...

When the voting results were in I was just thinking about Daniel Smith. I raised a lot of $ for her in the 2012 election campaign. That would be cool if she entered the leadership race. I'd vote for her in a heart beat.

An opinion shared by hardly anybody else. In what way could anybody defend Daniel Smiths record including her floor crossing (both ways). Man, a minimum requirement I have for a politician is that they even know what stripe they are. Not what flavor is convenient at the moment considering prospected election chances.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

I'm not sure how the United right figure they already have the next election won. From what I've read the Right doesn't do as well with Millennial voters who are more likely to vote Liberal or NDP and that's been the kind of shift in the nation. I don't know that they've yet come to grips with the notion that their tired brand doesn't sell well to Millennials. Which I'm thankful for.

The right really needs to be careful how they rebrand their failing message. But a merger with the Wild Rose, as I stated, is headed in the further right direction which limits their ability to capture centrist votes.

I think a plausible scenario is the United party wins one election, makes a mess of govt, and the election after that they get voted out again. I don't think they've learned anything. Kenney spending 1M on a provincial party leader campaign doesn't sit well with me either. It basically forecasts that he will be tied to the same old pork barrel with the same people benefitting again through privileged connections with the Govt. It even lends perceptions of a paid for alliance.

Last edited by Replacement; 24-07-2017 at 02:26 PM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

I've come very close to voting for Wild Rose (Daniel Smith seemed sensible and level headed) - But the fear of more "Lake of Fire" types coming out of the woodwork to usurp power and segregate Albertans...

When the voting results were in I was just thinking about Daniel Smith. I raised a lot of $ for her in the 2012 election campaign. That would be cool if she entered the leadership race. I'd vote for her in a heart beat.

An opinion shared by hardly anybody else. In what way could anybody defend Daniel Smiths record including her floor crossing (both ways). Man, a minimum requirement I have for a politician is that they even know what stripe they are. Not what flavor is convenient at the moment considering prospected election chances.

Ah. "a minimum"

Me. Married here. Never divorced. Oaths? Only to a point. Beyond that the old tradition and law against divorce was 'ill conceived' yet many would love a return to those days. So, floor crossing? I may not be one to do it but I wouldn't knock someone who did (walking in some elses' shoes, reality vs theory and all that). Abandoning a political party? They do so knowing that generally it is viewed very negatively. (I also know a guy that wouldn't date a divorced girl. I figured, his beliefs, his loss.)

I'm not sure how the United right figure they already have the next election won. From what I've read the Right doesn't do as well with Millennial voters who are more likely to vote Liberal or NDP and that's been the kind of shift in the nation. I don't know that they've yet come to grips with the notion that their tired brand doesn't sell well to Millennials. Which I'm thankful for.

The right really needs to be careful how they rebrand their failing message. But a merger with the Wild Rose, as I stated, is headed in the further right direction which limits their ability to capture centrist votes.

I think a plausible scenario is the United party wins one election, makes a mess of govt, and the election after that they get voted out again. I don't think they've learned anything. Kenney spending 1M on a provincial party leader campaign doesn't sit well with me either. It basically forecasts that he will be tied to the same old pork barrel with the same people benefitting again through privileged connections with the Govt. It even lends perceptions of a paid for alliance.

I doubt once the NDP has gone, we ever see them again in AB! Happy dancing!!!

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

Yep. The electorate is really weird in Alberta. Essentially vote out the Cons because they finally got fed up with 20 years of Con corruption and pork barrel politics. Then came the Cons and the crashing economy which CAUSED people to lose faith that the Cons had any answer. Now a few short years later and people are prepared to go back to that same corruption?

I'm with you and would never vote Wild Rose. I will never vote for a party amalgamated with Wild Rose. Period.

The weirdest thing is that the NDP are blamed for the economy when the crash came during PC reign.

I don't blame them, they are just adding to our debt! Onion lake, they are drilling on the Saskatchewan side, not Alberta, gee, I wonder why!

I'm not sure how the United right figure they already have the next election won. From what I've read the Right doesn't do as well with Millennial voters who are more likely to vote Liberal or NDP and that's been the kind of shift in the nation. I don't know that they've yet come to grips with the notion that their tired brand doesn't sell well to Millennials. Which I'm thankful for.

The right really needs to be careful how they rebrand their failing message. But a merger with the Wild Rose, as I stated, is headed in the further right direction which limits their ability to capture centrist votes.

I think a plausible scenario is the United party wins one election, makes a mess of govt, and the election after that they get voted out again. I don't think they've learned anything. Kenney spending 1M on a provincial party leader campaign doesn't sit well with me either. It basically forecasts that he will be tied to the same old pork barrel with the same people benefitting again through privileged connections with the Govt. It even lends perceptions of a paid for alliance.

I doubt once the NDP has gone, we ever see them again in AB! Happy dancing!!!

Sorry but replacement appeared to be talking about the new party.

So, combining the two comments (new party soon out and NDP out) my guess is that you'd predict a Liberal win two elections out. Correct?

I'm not sure how the United right figure they already have the next election won. From what I've read the Right doesn't do as well with Millennial voters who are more likely to vote Liberal or NDP and that's been the kind of shift in the nation. I don't know that they've yet come to grips with the notion that their tired brand doesn't sell well to Millennials. Which I'm thankful for.

The right really needs to be careful how they rebrand their failing message. But a merger with the Wild Rose, as I stated, is headed in the further right direction which limits their ability to capture centrist votes.

I think a plausible scenario is the United party wins one election, makes a mess of govt, and the election after that they get voted out again. I don't think they've learned anything. Kenney spending 1M on a provincial party leader campaign doesn't sit well with me either. It basically forecasts that he will be tied to the same old pork barrel with the same people benefitting again through privileged connections with the Govt. It even lends perceptions of a paid for alliance.

I doubt once the NDP has gone, we ever see them again in AB! Happy dancing!!!

Sorry but replacement appeared to be talking about the new party.

So, combining the two comments (new party soon out and NDP out) my guess is that you'd predict a Liberal win two elections out. Correct?

Yup, that's what I posted! It will be orange surrounded by a sea of blue..grinning!
I got the hell out of Edmonton, with its 4 million concrete parks, yes! End of August cannot come soon enough
:P

You may well be correct.

Now tell me what you expect a majority rule by the new party would mean for Alberta. Some real, not "airy fairy" right wing crap.

Eg.: "Lower taxes." Not good enough. That's airy fairy crap.
Ok, for who? For all? For a select group? Off-loading into higher user-fees like Klein or no Off-loading? No debt build up? Or passing taxes without growth into the next generation (Devine style conservativism, possibly left-wing style socialism - two extremes with the same effect). Plus how will "lower taxes" be attained?

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

I've come very close to voting for Wild Rose (Daniel Smith seemed sensible and level headed) - But the fear of more "Lake of Fire" types coming out of the woodwork to usurp power and segregate Albertans...

When the voting results were in I was just thinking about Daniel Smith. I raised a lot of $ for her in the 2012 election campaign. That would be cool if she entered the leadership race. I'd vote for her in a heart beat.

An opinion shared by hardly anybody else. In what way could anybody defend Daniel Smiths record including her floor crossing (both ways). Man, a minimum requirement I have for a politician is that they even know what stripe they are. Not what flavor is convenient at the moment considering prospected election chances.

Ah. "a minimum"

Me. Married here. Never divorced. Oaths? Only to a point. Beyond that the old tradition and law against divorce was 'ill conceived' yet many would love a return to those days. So, floor crossing? I may not be one to do it but I wouldn't knock someone who did (walking in some elses' shoes, reality vs theory and all that). Abandoning a political party? They do so knowing that generally it is viewed very negatively. (I also know a guy that wouldn't date a divorced girl. I figured, his beliefs, his loss.)

In Smiths case both crossings were expedient, and I don't think philosophical. The Wild Rose was even more of a mess under her leadership and I suspect she knew it. She fled back to the Cons when Prentice offered perceived momentary stability. I think she did it to try to remain in the Legislature. Political gold digger imo, using your analogy.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

I've come very close to voting for Wild Rose (Daniel Smith seemed sensible and level headed) - But the fear of more "Lake of Fire" types coming out of the woodwork to usurp power and segregate Albertans...

When the voting results were in I was just thinking about Daniel Smith. I raised a lot of $ for her in the 2012 election campaign. That would be cool if she entered the leadership race. I'd vote for her in a heart beat.

An opinion shared by hardly anybody else. In what way could anybody defend Daniel Smiths record including her floor crossing (both ways). Man, a minimum requirement I have for a politician is that they even know what stripe they are. Not what flavor is convenient at the moment considering prospected election chances.

Ah. "a minimum"

Me. Married here. Never divorced. Oaths? Only to a point. Beyond that the old tradition and law against divorce was 'ill conceived' yet many would love a return to those days. So, floor crossing? I may not be one to do it but I wouldn't knock someone who did (walking in some elses' shoes, reality vs theory and all that). Abandoning a political party? They do so knowing that generally it is viewed very negatively. (I also know a guy that wouldn't date a divorced girl. I figured, his beliefs, his loss.)

In Smiths case both crossings were expedient, and I don't think philosophical. The Wild Rose was even more of a mess under her leadership and I suspect she knew it. She fled back to the Cons when Prentice offered perceived momentary stability. I think she did it to try to remain in the Legislature. Political gold digger imo, using your analogy.

Nov. 17, 2014

Alberta’s Wildrose struggles to distance itself from allegations party doesn’t support gay people | National Post

Excerpt:

"But the failure of the more thorough version to pass demonstrates that the leadership of the party has been unable to impress upon its membership the depth of the political problem it faces; unless Wildrose is able to expand its base and appeal to more centrist voters, it may remain Alberta’s opposition in perpetuity, at best, or, possibly, wither into a fringe protest movement. And those centrist voters, even in Alberta, won’t countenance a party that is perceived to be anti-gay.

Danielle’s Smith “defence of Hunsperger [in 2012] came from a Libertarian thought process,” said Janet Brown, a Calgary-based pollster, who tracks issues and attitudes for a living. “And so I think I’m reluctant to go so far as to paint Wildrose as anti-gay. But I think their Libertarianism gets in the way of their sense of how these things are going to be perceived, and perception is reality.” ..."

"This is not a merger of parties, let’s be clear about this," he said in a joint news conference with Smith. "This is a unification of conservatives as Progressive Conservatives."
...

Smith said she was joining the party because Prentice's values were similar to the Wildrose. She and the other 8 MLAs decided to cross after agreeing to a set of "aligned values and principles."
...

"Past premiers have merely paid lip service to these issues, saying the right things and then doing the opposite," Smith said. "But Premier Prentice has shown me and my caucus that he is different."

Prentice became premier in September after winning the race to replace former PC leader Alison Redford. Talks had been underway for the past several months about uniting the right but Smith said they became more "intense" in the past two weeks. ..."

But if the NDP is really doing such a poor job there should be no pressing urgency to unite the right, no? Now that they're no longer the hated incumbent there should be no anti-pc protest vote, I'm sure.

But if the NDP is really doing such a poor job there should be no pressing urgency to unite the right, no? Now that they're no longer the hated incumbent there should be no anti-pc protest vote, I'm sure.

I think the right is more worried than the left, if they thought they could win the next election with their existing parties they wouldn't bother to unite. Obviously even they realize Wildrose and the PC's have a lot of political baggage.

I suppose uniting and picking a different name is the political equivalent of a marketing campaign where some company slaps a "NEW AND IMPROVED" label on some product that is old and really not that great. However, given that the united party will be comprised of characters from the old ones, I am not sure it will be so easy for them to discard all their political baggage. Rather than only picking up the best attributes of their predecessors, they could also inherit the worst (ex. PC arrogance combined with Wildrose extremism) too.

Also there are a lot of "legacy" PC voters (ie. they voted PC because that is what most people did and what they always did) who will now actually have to think about who to vote for next time. They are not all right wingers and may not be that comfortable with a new more right wing party.

It just annoys me that a party could literally run on the platform of not-the-NDP and get a ton of votes. It feels like a lot of people don't even know why they don't like the NDP, just that the economy isn't as good as it once was and it must be their fault.

I considered voting Conservative in the last election, I would never have considered voting Wildrose. They just seem like two vastly different ideologies. So the idea that both sides are OK with this merge just to get out the NDP makes me feel like they never really held onto those beliefs that tightly in the first place, but will promise whatever "conservative" thing will help them win.

I've come very close to voting for Wild Rose (Daniel Smith seemed sensible and level headed) - But the fear of more "Lake of Fire" types coming out of the woodwork to usurp power and segregate Albertans...

When the voting results were in I was just thinking about Daniel Smith. I raised a lot of $ for her in the 2012 election campaign. That would be cool if she entered the leadership race. I'd vote for her in a heart beat.

An opinion shared by hardly anybody else. In what way could anybody defend Daniel Smiths record including her floor crossing (both ways). Man, a minimum requirement I have for a politician is that they even know what stripe they are. Not what flavor is convenient at the moment considering prospected election chances.

Ah. "a minimum"

Me. Married here. Never divorced. Oaths? Only to a point. Beyond that the old tradition and law against divorce was 'ill conceived' yet many would love a return to those days. So, floor crossing? I may not be one to do it but I wouldn't knock someone who did (walking in some elses' shoes, reality vs theory and all that). Abandoning a political party? They do so knowing that generally it is viewed very negatively. (I also know a guy that wouldn't date a divorced girl. I figured, his beliefs, his loss.)

In Smiths case both crossings were expedient, and I don't think philosophical. The Wild Rose was even more of a mess under her leadership and I suspect she knew it. She fled back to the Cons when Prentice offered perceived momentary stability. I think she did it to try to remain in the Legislature. Political gold digger imo, using your analogy.

Nov. 17, 2014

Alberta’s Wildrose struggles to distance itself from allegations party doesn’t support gay people | National Post

Excerpt:

"But the failure of the more thorough version to pass demonstrates that the leadership of the party has been unable to impress upon its membership the depth of the political problem it faces; unless Wildrose is able to expand its base and appeal to more centrist voters, it may remain Alberta’s opposition in perpetuity, at best, or, possibly, wither into a fringe protest movement. And those centrist voters, even in Alberta, won’t countenance a party that is perceived to be anti-gay.

Danielle’s Smith “defence of Hunsperger [in 2012] came from a Libertarian thought process,” said Janet Brown, a Calgary-based pollster, who tracks issues and attitudes for a living. “And so I think I’m reluctant to go so far as to paint Wildrose as anti-gay. But I think their Libertarianism gets in the way of their sense of how these things are going to be perceived, and perception is reality.” ..."

"This is not a merger of parties, let’s be clear about this," he said in a joint news conference with Smith. "This is a unification of conservatives as Progressive Conservatives."
...

Smith said she was joining the party because Prentice's values were similar to the Wildrose. She and the other 8 MLAs decided to cross after agreeing to a set of "aligned values and principles."
...

"Past premiers have merely paid lip service to these issues, saying the right things and then doing the opposite," Smith said. "But Premier Prentice has shown me and my caucus that he is different."

Prentice became premier in September after winning the race to replace former PC leader Alison Redford. Talks had been underway for the past several months about uniting the right but Smith said they became more "intense" in the past two weeks. ..."

Not sure how that counters any of that which I've stated and I think its convenient bunk. Smith left the PC ship when she felt that was sinking, was the leader of a sordid splinter party of similar divisive miscreants and then when her leadership helped to damage any chances of that party she jumped back to the apparent stability of a Prentice run party. Excepting that her jump, along with her colleagues probably hurt the ruling conservatives in the next election as they all expose themselves as utterly transparent seekers of office willing to do anything to stay in power. You don't switch parties back and forth because you are philosophically moved to do so. You do it for sheer expedient opportunism.

Is it lost words to remind how curious it is that the Cons and Wild Rose (who feuded furiously in the past when they considered each other the opposition) are in bed with each other now DUE to seeing a similar foe?

Without the NDP election the Wild Rose and Cons would be tearing at each others throats. They'd still be.

Last edited by Replacement; 24-07-2017 at 04:29 PM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

But if the NDP is really doing such a poor job there should be no pressing urgency to unite the right, no? Now that they're no longer the hated incumbent there should be no anti-pc protest vote, I'm sure.

Well its been suggested before, why split the votes. Its a good decision imho

But if the NDP is really doing such a poor job there should be no pressing urgency to unite the right, no? Now that they're no longer the hated incumbent there should be no anti-pc protest vote, I'm sure.

Well its been suggested before, why split the votes. Its a good decision imho

I tend to think the issue of vote splitting, if there really was one should be resolved by the voters in an election and not have a solution impossed on them by political parties. Obviously the PC's were not the first choice of some who voted Wildrose and vice versa. I am not sure if creating a new party that might be their second or third choice will really solve the problem. It's also possible that some Wildrose or PC supporters will look for other new options instead.

But if the NDP is really doing such a poor job there should be no pressing urgency to unite the right, no? Now that they're no longer the hated incumbent there should be no anti-pc protest vote, I'm sure.

Well its been suggested before, why split the votes. Its a good decision imho

I tend to think the issue of vote splitting, if there really was one should be resolved by the voters in an election and not have a solution impossed on them by political parties. Obviously the PC's were not the first choice of some who voted Wildrose and vice versa. I am not sure if creating a new party that might be their second or third choice will really solve the problem. It's also possible that some Wildrose or PC supporters will look for other new options instead.

But if the NDP is really doing such a poor job there should be no pressing urgency to unite the right, no? Now that they're no longer the hated incumbent there should be no anti-pc protest vote, I'm sure.

Well its been suggested before, why split the votes. Its a good decision imho

I tend to think the issue of vote splitting, if there really was one should be resolved by the voters in an election and not have a solution impossed on them by political parties. Obviously the PC's were not the first choice of some who voted Wildrose and vice versa. I am not sure if creating a new party that might be their second or third choice will really solve the problem. It's also possible that some Wildrose or PC supporters will look for other new options instead.

Voters are like consumers. Just like goods and services, they have to buy from what is offered to them by producers and distributors. What consumers say, what they complain about, what they suggest is mostly ignored - unless their opinions somehow carry more weight than other individual buyers.

But if the NDP is really doing such a poor job there should be no pressing urgency to unite the right, no? Now that they're no longer the hated incumbent there should be no anti-pc protest vote, I'm sure.

Well its been suggested before, why split the votes. Its a good decision imho

I tend to think the issue of vote splitting, if there really was one should be resolved by the voters in an election and not have a solution impossed on them by political parties. Obviously the PC's were not the first choice of some who voted Wildrose and vice versa. I am not sure if creating a new party that might be their second or third choice will really solve the problem. It's also possible that some Wildrose or PC supporters will look for other new options instead.

Voters are like consumers. Just like goods and services, they have to buy from what is offered to them by producers and distributors. What consumers say, what they complain about, what they suggest is mostly ignored - unless their opinions somehow carry more weight than other individual buyers.

Maybe, but the barriers to entry are higher for phone companies and airlines that it is for someone to start a new political party.

I also think that for political parties the "brand" is the leader more than the party. I don't know who the CEO of my bank is, maybe he is a real nice guy, maybe not. I am not sure if I even care. However, party leaders are very much the face of their parties and their personal popularity determines a lot. The PC's did very well with Lougheed and Klein, not as well with Stelmach, Redford or Prentice.

I think some core voters will vote for the same party in election after election, which will make the next one very interesting if the biggest beneficiary from that - the Alberta PC brand - is gone.

But if the NDP is really doing such a poor job there should be no pressing urgency to unite the right, no? Now that they're no longer the hated incumbent there should be no anti-pc protest vote, I'm sure.

Its never good to have a split vote though, why risk it?

But public opinion has shifted since then. The New Democrats are now polling in the mid-20s in support and Notley's approval is around 30 per cent, half of what it was when she was first elected.

Whether or not the right is divided, the NDP is on track for defeat with those numbers.

With a little less than two years to go before the next scheduled election, however, the NDP has time to put itself back into contention. If the PCs and Wildrose had not voted to merge, the NDP could have been re-elected in a scenario that split the vote three ways between the PCs, Wildrose and New Democrats.

In such a scenario, the NDP would likely have retained most, if not all, of its seats in Edmonton and stood a decent chance of benefiting from PC/Wildrose splits to win enough seats in Calgary and the rest of the province to hold on to power. This was likely the potential outcome that kept Kenney and Wildrose Leader Brian Jean up at night.

I'm curious now if the left will split - i.e. if the leftie / Redford / Stelmac wing of the PC party will move more to the Alberta party, which could then make things even worse for the NDP than it already is. There isn't any scenario right now under which the NDP can win. The only issue is how much damage they can do to our economy, how much debt they will saddle the next generation with and how much more business will be driven out of the province by their foolish policies. People are learning the harsh reality that the Government isn't the driver of the economy - so when you ramp up government as a percentage of the economy, or the private sector drops with no equal drop in the public sector, the economy gets far weaker, and everyone but fat cat bureaucrats lose.

People are learning the harsh reality that the Government isn't the driver of the economy - so when you ramp up government as a percentage of the economy, or the private sector drops with no equal drop in the public sector, the economy gets far weaker, and everyone but fat cat bureaucrats lose.

Absolutely. Socialist politicians everywhere seem to insist that they can simply "command" an economy to improve. And everyone agrees that austerity sucks, but if you always avoid it, complete financial catastrophe will inevitably follow.

That's funny, because I feel that almost all legislation they've passed is to help average people. People like you, champ.

Have to disagree. The carbon tax was a direct attack on my business , my family, our way of life . Primary reason I closed my business .

The NEP hit my family. Lots of hatred of Trudeau. However, in business such things are and should be expected and prepared for. My family wasn't all that smart in that instance. Big time failure on our part. As for Trudeau and the NEP - it was just govt doing what government does - no matter the party.

I took a hit on Harper's REIT flip. I suffered s huge opportunity loss as governments bailed out businesses in the financial crisis. I was sitting ready for liquidation sales that never came. That's life and that's my poor business ability.

That's funny, because I feel that almost all legislation they've passed is to help average people. People like you, champ.

Have to disagree. The carbon tax was a direct attack on my business , my family, our way of life . Primary reason I closed my business .

The NEP hit my family. Lots of hatred of Trudeau. However, in business such things are and should be expected and prepared for. My family wasn't all that smart in that instance. Big time failure on our part. As for Trudeau and the NEP - it was just govt doing what government does - no matter the party.

I took a hit on Harper's REIT flip. I suffered s huge opportunity loss as governments bailed out businesses in the financial crisis. I was sitting ready for liquidation sales that never came. That's life and that's my poor business ability.

I think . For us . We pulled out... just in time, with loonie rebounding. If it hits $1 we be laughing ... no better time set up shop in states